Merit pay for teachers?

The prospect of merit pay in the teaching field is a can of worms. But it's an issue that continually pops up on the campaign trail, sparked no doubt by the generally lousy pay scale of teachers across the nation.

While on a campaign stop in Iowa, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discouraged the prospect of merit pay for teachers, saying the results would be "demeaning" and "discouraging" and asking the all-important question: who will determine the recipient? School-based merit plans are more to her liking.

When teachers address the issue, they often find more fault than benefit. The National Education Association (NEA) along with some state teachers' unions are opposed to the concept. Why? Well the first question was targeted by Clinton: who will be the judge? Will it be at the administrative level, where actual teaching progress is not based on individual student accomplishments but on the institution's retention goals? In other words, in a class of at risk students, a fair percentage simply will not complete a course. Some drop outs may be academically related issues. But economic conditions, family climate and discipline issues all take a huge toll on student success rates. How would it be fair to judge a teacher's performance when case management rather than pedagogical issues determine success?

Who or what else could determine performance? Test results? Students? Peers? Objective bodies?

In each case, the determination would have to create some kind of standard. Objectivity and relativity would be required. Comparison and contrasts, statistical baselines, variables, and time frames would all fall into the mix.

But the idea of inserting another layer of economic-based competition among educators is disturbing. Particularly when a more substantial solution could be made available: across the board increases in starting pay.

Here in Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist re-worked a formerly contested merit pay plan and signed it into law last June. The old plan was legally contested by the state teacher's union.

The plan covers the public school system and participation is optional. Each of the 67 school district decides at the administrative level whether to join the program. If elected, teachers must be awarded at least five percent of "average teacher pay," a move that pre-empts higher bonuses to veterans already earning a higher salary.

The bonus is determined by a mixture of test results (60%) and measurable levels of effectiveness among teachers (40%). Offhand, it sounds like an incentive mix of school-based and teacher-based criteria.

But the issue nationwide still lacks a resolution, and by many accounts is a shortcut for resolving the low level of overall compensation for teachers, an issue the NEA labelled a "national emergency" seven years ago when it rejected merit based pay incentives. More recently, the NEA flatly refuted the proposal:

The fundamental problem is low teacher pay, period. Merit pay schemes are a weak answer to the national teacher compensation crisis.